Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality Is Trump's Next Target, Administration Says (fiercetelecom.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Fierce Telecom: During a press event yesterday, White House spokesman Sean Spicer said that next up on President Trump's telecom agenda is to roll back the FCC's 2015 Open Internet net neutrality rules. However, according to some reports, that might not happen as quickly as Congress' recent move to rescind rules that prevented internet service providers from selling users' data. As noted by the New York Times, Spicer said that President Trump had "pledged to reverse this overreach" created by net neutrality. He said the FCC's net neutrality rules, passed in 2015, are an example of "bureaucrats in Washington" placing unfair restrictions on internet service providers, essentially "picking winners and losers" in the telecom market. In comments aimed at the wider telecom market, Spicer said Trump will "continue to fight Washington red tape that stifles American innovation, job creation and economic growth." However, as the NYT reports, the process to repeal net neutrality likely won't follow the same procedure as Congress' recent vote to remove broadband privacy rules -- since those rules were only a year old, Congress was able to use the Congressional Review Act to move forward with its action. The FCC's net neutrality rules, however, are more than two years old and so can't be reviewed by that same act. Thus, it may fall on newly installed FCC Chairman Ajit Pai to rescind the FCC's Open Internet rules, which he voted against when he was a commissioner at the agency under former chief Tom Wheeler.
I pity those who actually thought he cares about IT and science as evident by the posts.
Enjoy those non existent tax cuts and ISPs selling your browsing history and capped low QOS connections. Don't let your employer find your porn history?
http://saveie6.com/
Can you give an example of a situation where an Internet startup has been hampered by the net neutrality rules?
I read the internet for the articles.
Excuse me nice gentlemen. I don't mean to interrupt but, I've been searching news articles trying to find my cat. Have you seen my cat?
Net Neutrality was overreach, that instead of helping the people who wanted it, made sure it was harder than ever to compete agains the big ISP's like Comcast.
Are you on crack? Net Neutrality helped to kill the Comcast-Time Warner merger.
Stopping Comcast and Time Warner from merging into a super-company makes it easier, not harder, to compete against them.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
From what I remember the last time this came up, there were about 150 companies that signed a letter as proponents of net neutrality including major players like Google, Microsoft, and Amazon. So if were the Democrats I would frame this as Trump being anti-business.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Can you give an example where the net neutrality rules actually did anything useful in terms of stopping an ISP from doing something they should not?
Like the Netflix vs. Comcast spat? Seemed like it suddenly resolved itself once the new rules came out...
> made sure it was harder than ever to compete agains the big ISP's like Comcast. ...
> It's hard to prove some company is not starting up because of regulations concerns.
You do a wonderful job of arguing against yourself.
> What we know for sure is that more regulations mean more work for companies (in terms of hiring lawyers) to make sure they are complying with rules. That is beyond dispute.
No, it's really not.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Trump voters deserve what they get. Their "analysis" of current issues proves it time and time again. Getting fucked couldn't happen to a better group of morons. Schadenfreude is rich.
Trump voters deserve what they get.
Yeah, and morons themselves, Hillary voters deserve Trump also. Democrats fucked it up real good.
Trump voters keep making excuses for this extremely fat real estate con man.
Dude, you are a fucking moron. Do you always side with stupidity? I am just asking since you are batting 1000 so far.
Trump is a little bitch. As are his supporters. This comes as no surprise. He meant 0% of what he said during the campaign, has near zero interest in policy details and is just interested in other people seeing him as a "winner". Which proves he and his supporters are losers. Trump is an elderly version of Charlie Sheen.
That was resolved (correctly) BEFORE REGULATION.
No it wasn't, and your link is proof of that. Your "resolution" involved Netflix paying a fee to Comcast to deliver packets that Comcast's customers had already paid for. Capitulating to extortion is not the same thing as a resolution.
On the one hand, Trump does whatever he wants with Executive Orders and doesn't care about how it effects consumers.
One the other hand, he fucks up so much of his agenda I wonder if he will accomplish any harm.
Donald Trump's puppet masters in Russia have commanded him to destroy our alliances and undermine NATO.
Donald Trump is dutifully following Vladamir Putin's orders to sabotage America at all levels.
After all, Donald Trump's bribes have already been payed, and his tape has already been peed on.
Vladimir Putin owns Donald Trump and is controlling our foreign policy through him.
That only shows that two behemoths can duke it out. What about smaller content sites that can't?
Ajit Pai is Telecom's bitch and should change his name to Ajit Paid.
It's hard to prove some company is not starting up because of regulations concerns. It's on you to prove the regulations are useful and used.
Er what? The regulation that is in place is that no one has to pay for preferential treatment. What you are saying is as asinine as saying prove to me that because anyone can drive in any lane on a freeway that no one is being harmed by that.
What we know for sure is that more regulations mean more work for companies (in terms of hiring lawyers) to make sure they are complying with rules. That is beyond dispute. That cost gets passed along to the consumer, one way or another.
Your premise is flawed in that you are asserting that companies must hire more lawyers to comply with net neutrality. No what they must do is the same thing they have done since the birth of the Internet.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
You must live in an alternative reality because many consumer groups were in favor of net neutrality. Or are you just lying?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
jesus christ, will this dude ever grow a pair...
Because why the hell not? They're just pulling random bullshit out of their asses up on the WH nowadays.
All rules and laws must go! Fire sale of the century! Next 4 years only!
"It's on you to prove the regulations are useful and used." Nope, it isn't!
Show me any group other than an ISPs, cable broadband companies, or their shills that want to remove or cripple net neutrality. That is all you need to know.
Is it better for consumers? Does it promote new technology? Does it create a more competitive landscape? Does it build a robust marketplace? Or does it simply exist to further strengthen and enrich companies that already, in most cases, have a government-created monopoly?
That was resolved (correctly) BEFORE REGULATION. It is the proof that regulation was not needed.
You seem to forget that the current regulation is to keep the net neutral as it has been since the beginning of the internet. What you are saying is misleading.
All the FCC did was not to change what existed before. That is unless you believe in alternative facts.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Net neutrality is good for businesses and consumers. To employ a simple analogy that even Trump fans might understand, the rules prevent toll booth owners from charging extra fees if you happen to be carrying movies or CDs or porn or whatever they decide they can charge for. Abolition of the rules helps only the businesses who own the network.
Can you give an example where the net neutrality rules actually did anything useful in terms of stopping an ISP from doing something they should not?
It is too bad for you that goalpost moving is not an Olympic sport. You would win the gold.
n/t
You are welcome on my lawn.
Yeah they really screwed the pooch. Putting Hillary up as their candidate gave the republicans all they needed to buy Trump and have him do their bidding after his obvious victory.
There is no president right now, he is a puppet. Trump being president is literally the government running a social experiment on us.
The parent post doesn't contribute anything of substance to the discussion. Please mod it down to -1 Offtopic.
Sorry but no. One persons speculation isn't proof that nn did anything here. More than likely what killed the deal was the fact that it would allow a shithead company to continue to grow and become an even bigger and more destructive monopoly
Capitulating to extortion is not the same thing as a resolution.
So first you say the OP is wrong because the Netflix vs Comcast thing was resolved after the new rules came out, but when the OP shows that it was before, suddenly he's wrong because now you don't consider the thing to be resolved. You're like that guy who peddles bullets that can penetrate any bulletproof vests, then comes back the following week peddling bulletproof vests that stop any bullet.
I had no opinion about net neutrality but the more I read posts like yours, the more I realize that there's very little substance and a lot of bullshit on your side of that fence.
lucm, indeed.
DMCA, SOPA/TPP (before flipflopping), the anti-encryption stuff, a bunch of surveillance bills, etc.
Between her, Pelosi, Feinstein, and others the overripe clam chowder of the DNC has been just as far in bed with Big Brother as the elephants who never forget. Incest is wincest for the political elite, no matter which side of the table they choose to sit on.
It wasn't resolved until Netflix was able to stop paying those fees, and that didn't happen until the laws were changed. Make up your own mind, by all means, but if you can't appreciate the distinction I was drawing and recognize that the other poster was being disingenuous in suggesting that things had been resolved, I doubt we'll be seeing eye to eye.
So what you are saying is that you have nothing to contribute to the statement or the validity of the argument?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
The day we need a lynch mob we'll make sure to call you.
And the day we need someone to use strawman arguments, we'll call you. The poster didn't threaten anyone with harm. He asked why SuperKendall "always sided with stupidity".
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
But your argument relies on the consumer having a choice between ISPs and that ISPs compete. In many places consumers don't have a choice. I get so many mailers from AT&T about their low, low Internet rates. Despite weekly mailers, they don't service my area. Google Fiber: No. Verizon Fiber: No. Spectrum: The only choice. So when I had issues last summer with my router going down nearly every week, I couldn't do anything but call and complain again.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Net neutrality is the Kryptonite of /. technolibertarianism.
On one hand, technolibertarians hate big telcos and the way they treat traffic with preference, because technically telcos and their practices suck. /.ers want the free market to screw them, so that information traffic is free again. Neutral pipes also fit into the technolibertarian mind because they're more modular, more Unixy in philosophy, more robust in design, with separation of concern between content and transport.
On the other hand, technolibertarians also hate Net Neutrality because it's top-down government central planning. /.ers hate top-down heavy-handed regulation from a central power they inherently view skeptically, and they trust decentralized, free-market, and techno-meritocratic solutions better. If Big Government can force the ways of telcos, it can equally use the powers against you. If Big Gov can take away means to profit from big telcos, it can equally rob you.
There's no way out. We'll end up with the worst of both worlds, which is what we have now.
Trump voters deserve what they get. Their "analysis" of current issues proves it time and time again. Getting fucked couldn't happen to a better group of morons. Schadenfreude is rich.
Alas, Trump voters are nowhere near the only ones getting fucked.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
It seems that all Trump wants to do is undo anything that Obama is credited for doing. If he can't do that, he'll settle for putting his name at the bottom of something that Obama already did so he gets credit for it. And if that doesn't work he'll make sure the media is paying more attention to his latest controversy so we don't remember his most recent failures.
Indeed it seems that Trump's agenda is primarily self-promotion. Being as that has been his primary business since his first step inside the wrestling ring years ago (and arguably his best business venture ever) this shouldn't be much of a surprise.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Remember CISPA and SOPA? Dropped because of public outrage at the Bill. Okay, maybe your own personal crusade won't evoke change, but that is working as intended. If it happened to be a good Bill and you had enough public support behind it, you at least have a chance.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
You must live in an alternative reality because many consumer groups were in favor of net neutrality. Or are you just lying?
Did you actually look at that list of "consumer groups" before linking it? Or did you just chase a good headline and leave it to that, hoping that your clever accusation of living in an alternative reality would be a good smokescreen?
Here's the list of those organizations, some even signed twice and the poster made sure to mix them up. Can you please indicate which of those are "consumer groups"? I see one, maybe two, unless you consider United Church of Christ as a consumer group.
Alliance for Community Media (cable TV lobby)
Future of Music Coalition (indie music labels lobby)
American Civil Liberties Union
American Library Association
Benton Foundation
Consumer Federation of America
Center for Democracy and Technology
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Internet Archive
Common Cause
Free press
Knowledge Ecology International (that's Ralph Nader)
Media Access Project
New America Foundation
Tribal Digital Village
Media and Democracy Coalition
United Church of Christ
National Alliance for Media, Arts and Culture
Public Knowledge
USPIRG (that's Ralph Nader too)
National Federation of Community Broadcasters
Special Libraries Association
Writers Guild of America, West
lucm, indeed.
Jesus, is there anything you won't be an apologist for in this in this administration, SuperKendall?
Can you give an example of a situation where an Internet startup has been hampered by the net neutrality rules?
The problem is define "Net Neutrality". Everyone has a different definition.
Huh I must have been wrong thinking that having the money power to lobby/donate to politicians was using the political system to set winner and losers, the winning going to the one who donated the most money.
Well I guess Trump better dismantle the government.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Show me any group other than an ISPs, cable broadband companies, or their shills that want to remove or cripple net neutrality. That is all you need to know.
That's an oversimplification. Why don't you explain instead how exactly Internet is so broken that it needs more regulations?
lucm, indeed.
What the fuck has happened to my SlashDot?
This used to be a place for nerds
The readers are all fucking morons now
Fuck
The day we need a lynch mob we'll make sure to call you.
And the day we need someone to use strawman arguments, we'll call you. The poster didn't threaten anyone with harm. He asked why SuperKendall "always sided with stupidity".
The point is not about threats, the point is about jumping on a bandwagon of bashing someone without providing a reason
lucm, indeed.
So what you are saying is that you have nothing to contribute to the statement or the validity of the argument?
No
lucm, indeed.
No net neutrality is only good for telecoms. If you own a lot of communications infrastructure, then it benefits you as you can play pricing games and screw people over.
However any company that uses the Internet as a big part of their business, be it people that provide hosting, people that stream media, people that sell products on the net, etc net neutrality is highly desirable because they are the companies that the telcos would be screwing. They want it where all transit is equal and their products reach consumers no matter what.
Well there's a hell of a lot more companies in the second category than the first and that isn't likely to change.
If the rules go back to the way they were when the internet was created and grew to what it is today, undoing the rules only put in place by Obama very recently, surely the sky will fall, cats and dogs will be sleeping together, the Earth's magnetic fields will flip, the ocean currents will stop and the atmosphere will become toxic. Getting the federal government out of internet regulation will surely bring about the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
I swear, some people have the attention span of squirrels and the historical knowledge of chipmunks. The USA arose to be the country that invented the semiconductor, the personal computer, the airplane, vaccinations, etc and that broke the sound barrier and put men on the moon ALL WITHOUT ANY RULE, REGULATION, LAW, or AGENCY CREATED SINCE 1969.
Most human endeavors run perfectly well without being ruled by unelected, unaccountable, anonymous Washington DC bureaucrats lawyers and lobbyists - and indeed the internet itself proved this point between the day it was made available to the public and the day Obama's FCC declared itself in control of it without any legal authorization from the legislative branch (which has the job of representing the people and writing the laws).
The reason the privacy regulations were put in place by Obama was because the net neutrality rules put in place eliminated the FTC's purview over selling user data.
Once the FCC declared the ISPs as common carriers, the FTC's ability to regulate the ISPs went out the window. Because Google and Facebook aren't common carriers the FTC's regulations regarding selling data still apply to them.
If Trump is successful in rolling back the common carrier definition, which gave us "net neutrality", then the FTC's previous regulations preventing the sale of private information will be back in place.
You can see more detail about AT&T v. FTC which outlines the problem.
How can that be fixed?
A new federal government connection to every home and select an ISP from say Texas or Florida anywhere in the USA depending on what they offer?
Make every US ISP equal on existing private networks?
Allow every ISP in the US able to build their own new networks anywhere or have a local or city government build a network?
Like the old alarm services?
The best option would be a community network with many different ISP on it. The city connects hardware to you but offers not network services, select any ISP that offers a good service on that city hardware.
Bad ISP, just swap it for an ISP with better staff and peering skills.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
What does "Flagged" in the headline mean?
Net Neutrality Is Trump's Next Target, Administration Says [Flagged]
...was resolved after the new rules came out, but when the OP shows that it was before...
Well, no, it wasn't resolved before.
Netflix decided that they stood to gain more money than they lost by paying off Comcast, so Netflix paid Comcast, despite Comcast being in the wrong for throttling traffic.
It is not an industry standard to throttle traffic on a per website basis, and this is traffic that has already been paid for by the consumer.
Amazon doesn't have to pay Comcast for me to use their site, Slashdot doesn't have to pay Comcast for me to use their site.
If Netflix and Comcast customers are both paying for access to the internet, why should Netflix be paying an additional Comcast tax on top of that?
Especially when there was evidence of Comcast throttling connections (Netflix access through VPN was unaffected, while access through Comcast was throttled.)
I think "Headache" is the name of the new visual theme here no Slashdot.
Fuck you, Super Swindle
You are so far off you aren't even wrong.
You often post contrary ideas, that's ok, but this is just stupid.
How do you live with yourself.
The problem is that there is hardly a 'good ol' free market' when it comes to the internet in the US.
As it is, pretty much all big telcos to have a monopolistic stranglehold on their market. They have no competition because they made sure in many areas that there can't be any competition, through contracts they've signed with communities many years ago. Sure, shitty decision making on the side of the communes, but such anti-free-market contracts should be able to be contested after some time.
Here in communist Europe we have regulations for local loop unbundling and bit-stream access when it comes to transmission technologies like VDSL2+, forcing the big providers to rent out their last mile infrastructure to other providers at reasonable prices. As a result there are hundreds of different ISPs, all competing with each other over price, service and similar things. As a result I get 500mbit downstream, 200mbit upstream and two hardlines connections for less than $25/month.
But not in the US. LLUB was evil communism and destroying the market, removing the incentive for smaller ISPs to build their own infrastructure. Look at what the removal of such regulations did to the diversity of your ISP market.
Of course this doesn't mean that all regulations are good, neither all of them bad. Some regulations can help to level the playing field if the oligopolies do what they do, corner the market and stack the deck in their favour.
LOL, you think a corporation's job is to lower costs? How cute!
You're looking at all of this backwards, presumably because you're not aware of the history here. Net neutrality was law from the mid-90s until about 2013 when those laws expired. Within about a year of them expiring, we saw shenanigans like the ones I mentioned above.
So when you ask what benefit we've seen from net neutrality: Google, Facebook, Netflix, and every other company that began and was able to flourish in that period because net neutrality ensured that they were able to each everyone equally. That's what net neutrality was able to foster.
On the other hand, I actually agree with some of what you've said in other posts about the free market taking care of things, but there's an issue preventing that from occurring here: exclusivity agreements. Most states and municipalities either signed explicit exclusivity agreements with ISPs (who were eventually bought out by the big players, thus conferring those rights to the big guys), or else granted implicit exclusivity by having laws on the books that prevent competitors from laying their own lines. Those agreements create regional monopolies (i.e. these ISPs are the only ones who even CAN have access to those subscribers), and where we allow monopolies to exist, the free market is incapable of addressing problems, hence why we we heavily regulate monopolies. That's why regulation is necessary here, just as it is in any other monopoly situation.
Remove the barriers to competition and I'm fine with letting the free market handle things (net neutrality or not, I would LOVE to switch ISPs, but I only have one broadband choice in my area), but don't dismantle the one and only protection we have against bad behavior until you fix the market side first.
So, blocking Netflix was pro-consumer?
ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
The debate is: should there be a law preventing Comcast from doing whatever the fuck they want with their business?
My take on this is: no.
That's a fair summarization, and I would say "it depends". In an actual free market, I'd agree with you that "no" is the answer, since the same would apply equally to Netflix, who would doubtless denounce Comcast's bad behavior and then raise their rates for Comcast's customers, thus prompting Comcast's customers to look for alternative ISPs. Some would leave, some would stay, and some would ditch Netflix. No matter what, problem solved.
Unfortunately, that isn't able to happen here, since most of those customers have no one else that they can switch to, meaning that without net neutrality, Comcast can (and has demonstrated that they will) leverage their monopoly position with regards to their customers to maximize their already-substantial profits. In a free market, that sort of thing should not be possible in the first place since monopolies are either broken up or regulated to prevent them from leveraging their position for ill-gotten gain. The fact that it happened after net neutrality fell off the books proves that there are still barriers to competition, but that net neutrality is not one of them.
Fix the exclusivity agreements and local/state laws preventing new entrants and you'll fix the competition problem. In the meantime, either break up or regulate the monopolies as you should.
>Net neutrality was law from the mid-90s until about 2013 when those laws expired
Citation needed.
Good old nitpicking.
He's doing deals. He gets a little bit of publicity-generating orders to sign. The crocodiles get fed a few morsels (like consumers and citizens).
Isn't it nice to see how it all works out in the end?
ISP Selling Internet History
While collecting the internet history of users will allow companies such as Comcast or AT&T to target consumers with specific ads, it raises the question: how will they actually collect your data?
Tracking User Location: Thanks to smart devices with GPS, ISPs can access user location and keep a tab on it.
Complete Packet Inspection: ISPs can not only go through certain pockets of data transmitted over the web, but also data which is used for user protection with complete packet inspection technology.
Monitoring Online Activities: By monitoring the websites their users go to, ISPs can easily collect, store and sell that information to companies offering the highest bid.
Secure your data by acquiring PureVPN.
And how would you do that?
How do you think ISPs that currently hold their local monopoly will react to 'anyone' trying to force them to be equal on their own infrastructure with competitors? Here communities that want to build their own infrastructure are part of the 'anyone'.
How do you think people would react if every week there's a new potential ISP that wants to build their own infrastructure? I do hope they like frequent road construction works or a damn ton of wiring in the sky.
Because of the local monopolies, laws, and contracts, changes like that require at least some regulations or other government interventions to happen on a larger scale. It doesn't have to be large government as long as local governments is given the power to enforce their own regulations.
Easy -
All packets are created equal. QOS/traffic shaping only allowed when you can prove abuse or undue burden on infrastructure
The second you start regulating service providers, you're killing the incentive to become one.
If destructive behavior is your incentive to become a service provider, then the regulation is working as intended.
That was resolved (correctly) BEFORE REGULATION.
No it wasn't, and your link is proof of that. Your "resolution" involved Netflix paying a fee to Comcast to deliver packets that Comcast's customers had already paid for. Capitulating to extortion is not the same thing as a resolution.
Aaaaannnnnd SuperKendall disappears!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
You just made a fantastic argument as to how regulation fosters innovation. You innovate not charge more! Think of it this way, what does the price tiers do? They price out users based on their usage habits. We want to use the internet in bigger and more innovative ways but there's a ceiling as to your audience even if the true demand is there.
The fact is telecoms have little incentive to boost their speed and innovate because they're just pulling in easy money. Just about everyone needs the internet but these telecoms answer to their shareholders who want profits to continue increasing at a rate higher than most other basic utilities.
What do you mean? Clinton had the perfect campaign: insult, divide, and alienate your voter while ignoring critical swing states and pushing an image that the presidency is owed to you. She only lost because the US can't handle such a perfect campaign.
In a free market, that sort of thing should not be possible in the first place since monopolies are either broken up or regulated to prevent them from leveraging their position for ill-gotten gain.
The paradox of the free market. Since it always destroys itself once individual players get big enough, and become intent on destroying their competition, you need regulations to keep that from happening, which means it isn't free any more.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Net Neutrality has nothing to do with pro-business but with the idea that when you don't have net neutrality consumers would have to pay extra to get access to some services on the internet. Companies like Google, Amazon and Netflix for example rely on net neutrality with their video on demand services. They do not want to pay for extra band width, nor do they want that their customers/users have to pay extra to get access to their services.
ISP's however are in trouble. Smaller ISP's can not follow the increasing demand in bandwidth. Some countries/area's have a not so ideal spread of the population and offering the required bandwidth becomes cost ineffective. When the government threatens to force ISP's to offer a certain bandwidth at a max price, you can understand that ISP's ask favors in return. In my country we have a duopoly. All the smaller ISP's have been wiped out because they could simply not afford the investements to bring high speed internet. Now everybody has to pay the high costs of missing real competition on the ISP market. There are people who download terabytes of data every month who pay as much as someone who only downloads a gigabyte a month. The law prohibits ISP's to charge more for the super user. In the past there was a download cap of 25 GB with the option to buy extra blocks. This was banned by net neutrality laws and the ISP's were forced to invest in the last mile delivery. This is what killed the smaller ISP's and killed the competition, at least in our country.
I don't know what is best in the end. Of course I want net neutrality so I can access everything that is available. But do I also want to keep my high monthly bill of 120 euro / month if a non neutral internet could lower that to 40 euro / month? For me net neutrality would be better since I don't watch 'real' TV anymore but use streaming services instead. I can watch the handful of programs I like at the time that fits me and order a movie on demand and fill the rest of the time with an occasional game. But the vast majority of people still have their normal cable television and don't bother to watch streams. I think that the majority of those people are in favor to drop net neutrality which is something they do not understand anyway, and choose a lower monthly bill instead.
Of course than you can say that the government should protect the 'ignorant' people who do not understand net neutrality. But that is again a step in the nanny state model I do reject. We already have too much nanny state in Europe. Do I want even more nanny state simply because I'm in favor of net neutrality? I do not know. I simply do not know. We have net neutrality today, but it didn't stop that only a handful of companies took over the control of the internet and killed competition on the market.
Did you actually look at that list of "consumer groups" before linking it? Or did you just chase a good headline and leave it to that, hoping that your clever accusation of living in an alternative reality would be a good smokescreen?
Yes I did. Did you?
Here's the list of those organizations, some even signed twice and the poster made sure to mix them up. Can you please indicate which of those are "consumer groups"?
You mean like these groups which you listed: Consumer Federation of America, Center for Democracy and Technology, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Internet Archive, Common Cause, Free press. Public Knowledge,
I see one, maybe two, unless you consider United Church of Christ as a consumer group.
So where did I say that ALL groups listed where consumer groups. I said many. In the above list, I've clarified several. You really are all about strawman arguments, aren't you?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
The point is not about threats,
That's not what you said. You said: "The day we need a lynch mob we'll make sure to call you."
lynch mob
noun
a group of people who want to attack someone who they think has committed a serious crime
the point is about jumping on a bandwagon of bashing someone without providing a reason
That also not what the poster said either. He seemed to know Super Kendall's history of inane arguments.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
A new federal government connection to every home and select an ISP from say Texas or Florida anywhere in the USA depending on what they offer?
How about actual competition? There have been multiple times that a government, fed up with the poor service of ISPs, have built their own only to face legal action from ISPs.
Make every US ISP equal on existing private networks?
How about following the rules that everyone else has to follow.
Allow every ISP in the US able to build their own new networks anywhere or have a local or city government build a network?
ISPs have opposed any network not theirs.
The best option would be a community network with many different ISP on it. The city connects hardware to you but offers not network services, select any ISP that offers a good service on that city hardware.
Again you have to survive legal actions by current ISPs first.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
He's a paid shill. He sleeps on his sacks of money at night. They infiltrated a low user ID and handed him bags of money to be a slashdot lobbyist. I think he's recruited lucm as well. The fact that everyone of their post is modded down is a telling sign. We aren't buying their shit.
No is two letters. You wasted a lot of letters just to say it.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Here's your reason: SuperKenDoll
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Things like what Comcast did in forcing Netflix to pay not to be throttled should be recognized as the fraud on the consumer that it is, with all the criminal and civil implications thereof. I'd argue that the best regulations here shouldn't block the consumer from being given the option of buying a package with throttling--but the consumer has to actively consent to anything that's not a dumb-as-a-rock pipe that the ISP only can control the total overall speed thereof & they have to have that as their basic package(s).
That's like saying it's easier to fight against Russia and China united against us than it is to fight China and Russia "separately" at the same time.